Expert: Wayne Brooks - 5/28/2004

Question
hi!

i understand that the traditional church teachings on the subject of homosexuality has been negative and it's considered as a sin. however, i've also read many alternative Christian views on the topic and some are more lenient. in fact i have some personal Christian friends who are very serious about their Christian faith and lives, only that they are convinced that the Bible doesn't condemn all homosexual acts but those which are promiscuous, abusive and selfish.

i would like to hear your views on those who are devout Christians but yet sincerely believe that the Bible doesn't prohibit faithful and loving monogamous homosexual relationships. Must they repent of their lifestyle before they can be rightly considered as Christians?

Even if we insist that such Christians are wrong, how serious is their sin? Will they lost their salvation and go to hell because of their convictions?

thanks.

Answer
Dear Mary,

I want to answer your question in two parts.  I want to answer your question on the salvation aspect first.  Then I recently had another question about faithful and loving monogamous homosexual relationships.  I will include my answer to that part of what the Bible teaches second.  But be careful about the statement “faithful and loving monogamous homosexual relationships.”  The statistics I have read recently suggests that this phase has been redefined by many in the homosexual community.  The phrase, to many, means a homosexual couple stays together but has multiple sexual partners in addition.  This is especially true of male homosexuals.  Make sure you understand what is really being said.

First, what about salvation?  The Bible teaches that we are saved by faith in the person (deity and humanity) and work (our substitute sin sacrifice) of Jesus alone, apart from our works.  A person who is truly saved by Jesus is kept saved by Jesus.  If our works do not save us then neither can they cause us to lose our salvation.  All Christians slip and sin more often than we care to admit, but the blood of Jesus keeps on cleaning us from sin.  A homosexual sin will no more cause us to lose our salvation than a heterosexual sin will.  That is the positive news.  But what does it mean to “trust Jesus as our Savior?”  Does it not mean to fall at the feet of Jesus and accept Him as our Savior and God?  Does it not mean that we become His followers?  If we become His followers does that not mean that we accept His view of life as our own?  If I say I want Jesus to be my Savior but I am totally unwilling to even desire to let Him give me victory over an area of my life that I know is displeasing to Him, does not this make my words suspect?  Jesus said that not everyone who will say to Him some day at the judgment, “Lord, Lord” is His child.  He also said, “if you love me, keep my commandments.”  Christianity is not a convenient eternal life insurance policy.  It is a radical new lifestyle, whereby we begin to let god change us into the image and likeness of God.  Therefore, an ongoing, unrepentant lifestyle opposite of what the Lord desires is a mark that a person has probably never really been saved.  See I Corinthians 6:9-10 and Revelation 21:8.  That is the negative news.

Second, what does God think of faithful and loving monogamous homosexual relationships?  We will concede that He is opposed to promiscuous sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual.  But what does he think about a faithful homosexual relationship?  Here is the answer I gave to another person.

I trust I understand your question correctly.  “Is it okay to be gay, and to have a monogamous relationship with a partner of the same sex?”  I assume that includes a physical relationship as well as an emotional bond.  I will try to help in this area.  First, we will look at the passages you mentioned and then make some other observations.

II Samuel 1:26

This is David lament for his dear friend Jonathan, son of Saul, upon learning of his death.  The story of David and Jonathan is found in I Samuel 18, 19, 20, 23 and here in II Samuel 1:26.  Jonathan first met David right after David had killed Goliath.  Immediately he felt a close bond or kindred spirit with David.  He understood that David had been anointed to be the next king of Israel instead of himself.  However, instead of jealously he did everything within his power to protect his friend.  Eventually David was given Jonathan's sister in marriage but that same bond of friendship and protection was not found with her.  Truly, Jonathan's friendship, his love, surpassed that of David's wives.

David was married and had children as well as Jonathan.  Never in the story of their friendship is there any suggestion that it ever involved any kind of physical relationship between the two.  To make that assumption would be an argument from silence and impossible to be proven.  What David and Jonathan had was a very close friendship that very few people ever experience.  Having a close male friend is not wrong at all, but the story of David and Jonathan in the Bible does not address the issue of homosexuality.  That would be something we impose upon the text.  Also the fact that both married women and had children rules out any kind of a monogamous relationship between the two of them.

Genesis 19:4-5

The story of the destruction of Sodom is obviously not a story of monogamous relationships.  It is the story of God destroying a very wicked city (18:20). God says He is going to the city to see if it is really that wicked (18:21).  Obviously God knew everything about the city so why did He put it this way?  He wanted us to understand the kind of evil that is very grievous in His sight and worthy of judgment.  So what do we discover He finds when the two angels get to Sodom?  A great crowd of men heard two male strangers had entered the city and they gathered and wanted to rape them.  They even refused Lot's offer of his two daughters in favor of the men.  Sodom was guilty of a number of sins but homosexuality was very much a part of the wickedness of the city, in addition to violence, etc., which caused God to destroy the city.

When Jesus comments on the destruction of Sodom some 2000 years later what is His point?  It really is not a discussion of hospitality.  He has come to the cities of Israel and sent out His disciples with His message and many of those towns refused to believe the message He brought from his Father.  The point is that if Sodom refused to believe the message of God delivered by angels and was destroyed, would not these cities face greater judgment for rejecting the message of God delivered by His Son?

One cannot genuinely avoid the fact that the expression of homosexuality, while not the only reason, was a vital part that brought God's wrath upon Sodom.

Leviticus 18:22

Were these things cultural or have they been superceded by the laws of God in this age in which we now live?  Some things about God do change as the dispensations change, like how He relates to people and what He requires from them.  This involves things like how to worship, permitted foods, etc.  However, some things about God never change.  This involves things that are consistent with His character and holiness.

What is involved in Leviticus 18?  The chapter begins by God exhorting His people not to get involved in some of the practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites.  It closes with the warning that it was for these practices that he had the Canaanite people destroyed.  He spells out the practice of incest (18:6-18), sex during menstruation (19), adultery (20), child sacrifice (21), homosexuality  (22), and bestiality (23).  Then God makes a very significant statement in verses 24-25.  The reasons I am destroying these nations are because they practiced these things.  But these nations had never received God's law like Israel.  Therefore, we must conclude that these are practices that offend God whenever they are done by whoever does them.

Mark 10:7-9

You are correct that Jesus is very much defending the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.  The religious rulers of Israel had come to Jesus trying to trap Him into making some statement they can use against Him or with which they could turn the people away from Him.  So they ask Him to tell them what he considers the correct justification for divorce between a husband and wife.  Jesus' basic response was that God never intended for a husband and wife to break up.  That was something God regulated later because of the sinful hard hearts of the people.

However, to prove His point Jesus does something very interesting.  He takes them back to the beginning, the Garden of Eden, in Genesis 2.  God made Adam the man first and placed him in the garden to take care of it.  God then declared that it was not good for man to be alone.  He needed a companion, someone to complete him.  So God puts Adam to sleep and from his rib He makes a woman, Eve.  Then it is stated that from that model a husband and wife should be one flesh and linked to each other their entire earthly lives.

God's original intentions are clear.  When God accomplished the need for companionship and sexual union for man, He did not make another man, but a woman.  This was intended to last a lifetime.  Anything less than that is a failure to meet God's desires, whether it is divorce or homosexuality.

Matthew 19:11-12

This is a corresponding passage to Mark 10.  After Jesus says that a husband and wife should not divorce, the disciples respond that this is a hard saying.  It was their way of saying to Jesus, “you mean if I get stuck with a bad wife, I am stuck with her for life?  Why it would be better not to get married at all then to get stuck for life with the wrong mate.”

Jesus responded that because of the way we are made, with sexual drives and needs, that most people cannot take going through life without an appropriate means of sexual satisfaction, so they should get married.  However, there are several exceptions.  Some people are born eunuchs.  That is some people are born without a sexual drive.  These people can forgo marriage if they choose.  Some have been made eunuchs surgically and are without sexual drives.  This was quite common in those days.  They can forgo marriage if they choose.  Some voluntarily choose to stifle their sexual urges to more fully devote themselves to service Jesus by remaining single.

I am afraid I must disagree that this passage is the strongest evidence that being gay is not wrong.  It is strong evidence that being single is not wrong.  However, eunuch does not equal homosexual.  A homosexual is a person who fulfills their sexual needs with a person of the same sex.  A eunuch is a person who either has no sexual drive or chooses not to fulfill it at all.

Romans 1:26
I Corinthians 6:9

Let's that these in order.  Romans 1:18-32 is written to describe why we find some of the conditions we see in this world.  Mankind had the knowledge of God at one time and turned away from it and began to invent gods after their own liking.  Therefore, God gave people over to defile themselves and do whatever their imaginations could think of.  God does not use any specific word in this passage to describe these people.  He simply describes their acts, women with women and men with men.  This is a vivid description of homosexual acts and is clearly identified as a defilement and rejection of what God desires and will be judged by God someday.

Two words are used in I Corinthians 6:9, which is a different book written for a different purpose.  The first, “malakos” refers to boys kept by older men for homosexual purposes as well as the man who takes the part of the woman in the homosexual relationship.  The second, “arsenokoites” refers to the man who takes the male role in the homosexual relationship.  Is this just cultural?  This verse states that people who habitually practice these kinds of lifestyles will not inherit the kingdom of God.  Verse 11, makes it clear that a genuine conversion experience will begin to provide deliverance and victory from these lifestyles.  The other actions listed in verses 9-10 are not cultural and I seriously doubt the references to homosexuality are either.

Other Observations

1. There are no examples of practicing homosexuals who are dedicated followers of God in the Bible.  I find this significant.
2. God made a woman to fulfill a man, not a man.
3. The physical created bodies of men and woman reveal that God made men and women to go together.
4. That does leave one important consideration.  Why do we have the urges we are born with?  Didn't God make us the way we are?  Let's consider this from a different angle than sexuality.  I have seen people, young children, with a natural tendency to lie.  They seem to have been born with the urge to lie.  Is it okay for them to lie because that is the way they were born?  No, the Bible is clear that lying in wrong.  What it means is that they will have to battle the tendency to lie all their lives.  In order to please God they must not give in to their urge to lie.  They must rather force themselves to tell the truth.  Why were they born with this tendency?  Did God make them this way?  God made the first humans without the experience of sin.  We were created in the image of God.  But when Adam and Even choose to sin they brought death, sin and ruin into the human race.  The image of God was torn apart.  Adam has passed down that sin nature, the natural tendency to sin, to all his descendents.  Every person born today is born with serious sin defects and each of us has our specific tendencies to battle.  God did not make that child a liar, sin did.  God sent Jesus to help give him victory over the sin of lying.  Here is the point.  God did not make you with homosexual tendencies or “different.”  That is the result of being born a sinner.  It is your particular weakness.  The sin is not our inborn tendency but what we do with it.  Do we choose to express our sin nature or look to Jesus for victory and not express it?

I trust some of the things I have said will be helpful.

Sincerely,
Wayne Brooks